Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BMI Reports All-Time Profit High Despite Piracy

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the business-not-so-bad-after-all dept.

applemasker writes "Arstechnica is running a story chock full of links to other interesting things about BMI's amazing record profit and how the RIAA skews its sales statistics while strangling fair use." Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

29 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. What BMI will say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If it weren't for piracy, we would've made even more money."

    1. Re:What BMI will say by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is a typical and specious argument that can't be argued against without looking and sounding shrill. It is an argument of convenience at best. I would counter with the fact that BMI's rate of growth has been steady going back nearly a decade and growth that smooth was probably not affected (much) by piracy or there should have been a bump in there somewhere.

      Cheers,

      Erick

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    2. Re:What BMI will say by BoldAC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Artists make most of their money from other sources now. Much like atheletes they make money from sponsorships...

      What video these days doesn't push a product or three? Heck, videos contain enough commericals now that I wouldn't be surprised if MTV actually started showing videos again.

      Smaller artists, like many of my friends, make most of their money from live performances... despite being signed to "major labels."

      Sadly, these major labels often sign many artists to keep them from signing with other groups. Paying them a small fee and then "vaporwaring" their music keeps them out of the competition.

      The music companies are bastards, bastards them all.

    3. Re:What BMI will say by erick99 · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is not new, not that it changes the argument but I was taping songs off the radio in the 60's when I was 10 years old. I would agree that it's easier now and the quality is better but copying songs is an "old" practice and I just don't know that it has the effect that the labels believe. When I got older and got a job, I began paying for my music as I believe most folks do.

      Cheers,

      Erick

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    4. Re:What BMI will say by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why would they say that? BMI collects royalties on performance rights, not CD sales. CD sales have nothing to do with their revenue stream.

      Remember, BMI is a non-profit artists' rights agency, collecting royalties for composers and songwriters for performances -- not sales -- of music which was written or composed by their members.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    5. Re:What BMI will say by tigeba · · Score: 5, Informative

      BMI is a non-profit organization that collects royalties for performances on behalf of artists. ASCAP is a similar organization. The money is obtained from entities like radio stations and then is distributed to artists based on statistical sampling of compiled performance data. Artists (songwriters, composers, publishers) select an organization (BMI, ASCAP) and register their works with them, and in return for a membership fee, the organization sends them a check if their performances show up on the radar.

    6. Re:What BMI will say by Commander+Trollco · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whether they are affected or not would be really beside the point, if we were to look at the problem from its root.

      The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss"
      resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
      The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

      The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
      that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.
      In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

      --
      http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
    7. Re:What BMI will say by IronMagnus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Case in point, my brother bought a CD, it wouldn't play in his car CD player. He pop'd it on his linux box and was able to make a copy despite the copy protection. Heres the irony. If the CD wasn't copy protected, we would have had no reason to make a copy of it... fortunately the protection was useless and easily circumvented for fair use.

    8. Re:What BMI will say by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc. The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content. Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there. Some say it's a bad thing, some say it's a good thing, but in a free society that should be all about choice, it's pretty definitive of our ideals. Lots to choose from.

      Now lots of people, including myself, believe that copyright has gotten out of hand. The extensions, for example, are completely unnecessary to the original goal. I don't think anyone here believes that it will take 70+ years for an author these days to recoup their investment plus make a profit on their book. In fact, since copyright depends upon the life of the author, we're truly just allowing for the estate of the author to live off of their work, something that doesn't jive (in my opinion) with the purpose of copyright.

      But what it all comes down to is that it doesn't matter. We live in a society where copyright is the law. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but it is against the law. A person doesn't deserve to download to music just because they'd never buy it anyway, so the store+record company+artist isn't going to lose anything. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But it doesn't mean it's acceptable to break it and justify it with crap like that.

    9. Re:What BMI will say by pyros · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.

      Um, no. Copyright is defined in the Constitution. It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed. If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works. The problem is that the original terms of copyright have been extended far beyond the point of any usefulness. When you say "if the public decides" you are ignoring the fundamental protection from the tyranny of the majority that the constitution affords us all. Would you sing the sae tune if the public decides they all have the right of prima nupta and line up to have sex with your wife on your wedding night to bless the union? You won't have been robbed of any property or income.

    10. Re:What BMI will say by syberanarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People like you are the reason that the RIAA's line of "copyright ends when we say so" stays as the official mantra of the public. I mean, did you really just compare the ownership of an idea to deflowering someone's bride? And I thought the Hitler/Bush comparisons were out there.

      If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.

      Good point, except that the public domain IS becoming void of artistic works, and will continue to do so for the next 75+ years thanks to the work of the late Sonny Bono and other "public servants."

      Probably longer than that, actually - I can see it now: the MICKEY II AP act - Money In Copyright Key II American Prosperity act - will ensure that copyrights last for up to 90 years after the corporation that bought them for pennies of the dollar goes bankrupt.

      They (the corporations) are not holding up to their end of the bargain (limited copyright). So why should I hold up to my end by buying their music instead of taking what should rightfully be in the public commons? (I don't listen to music from the current times, thanks.) Because the law says so? You're going to have to give this free thinker a better reason than that, Jack.

      The musicians are in the middle of the battle, and those who keep signing with RIAA labels have shown where their allegiances lie. Thus, they'll get no pity from me.

    11. Re:What BMI will say by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc.

      WRONG! You shouldn't start your post with a logical fallacy. Creative works were produced long before the notion of copyright ever existed therefore you can never assert that copyrights were the cause without extra justification.

      Really, you should build up to the logical fallacy that way it is more believable.

      This of course is why we will probably never win in this battle. Nobody who cares enough about truth is willing to blatantly lie to take down blatant liars.

    12. Re:What BMI will say by mpe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc.

      Books (and libraries) predate the concept of copyright by a very long time.

      The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content.

      Actually copyright was invented to give the state control over use of the printing press. Resulting in the business model of the third party publisher. Media invented afterwards copied the same business model.

      Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there.

      Movies and televison postdate the invention of copyright, so it's anyone's guess how they might work without it. Whereas books predate the concept by thousands of years.
      It's very much evident that authors will write books without copyright even existing. It's also far from clear that the existance of copyright does much to encourage authorship anyway.

  2. Reminds me of South Park by imehler · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those Bastards! They did have enough for their 17th corvettes, solid gold diamond encrusted swimming pools and harem full of supermodels after all - that FBI agent LIED to us!

  3. Still by 6169 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

    I'll stop doing that when I feel the price for an album has settled to a more reasonable price point.

  4. I sense the potential for confusion by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    BMI != BMG

    BMG is a record label.

    BMI is a performance rights organization representing songwriters and their publishers. It handles royalties for radio play of over 4 million copyrighted songs. The other major performance rights organizations are ASCAP and SESAC.

    1. Re:I sense the potential for confusion by starrsoft · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think this article was presented a bit out of context. (i.e. "how the RIAA skews its sales statistics while strangling fair use.") This is after all an organization that "handles royalties for radio play". This does nothing to counteract the argument that piracy is hurting music sales. This is the profits of playing music on the radio, which would logically be greater, because of file sharing not less.

      I think the problem the RIAA has with file sharing is that is shifts the profits an artist receives to being funneled through (with usual middleman skim-off) BMI type companies instead of BMG (RIAA) type companies. This article isn't and shouldn't be about RIAA type sales not decreasing; it is about the revenue, that music lovers direct to artists, shifting to other industries as a result of technological evolution.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
  5. -1, obvious by rootofevil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    seriously, when are they going to realize that P2P isnt hurting anything.

    this will likely be spun as "look how well our lawsuits are working, people are actually buying music again"

    --
    turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Am I the only person here by jb.hl.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who still buys RIAA artist CDs?

    Recently I've bought about 4 CDs, totalling about 75 dollars of music (50 gbp). Why? Because I like the artist, I want the included artwork and gimmicks and because it is only fair that the artist, the record company and the music store and anyone else involved in the production of the record get paid. If you like an artist, I mean REALLY like an artist, you will be happy to pay for their music. Can't call yourself a fan of some music if you're not willing to pay for it,

    YMMV.

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    1. Re:Am I the only person here by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um I buy music, but not from any major label... I go out of my way to support bands I like who aren't signed to major labels and I support small 'indy' labels.

      Why? Because I like their music and I can accept it as good music. They write their own stuff. They stick to their artistic ideals. And they will keep doing it as long as they find it interesting to do.

      Why don't I support bands with major label deals? Because most don't have much real talent. Most don't write their own songs. Most submit to the whims of the labels marketing department rather than sticking to their artistic gifts. And finally most are at the utter whim of the labels themselves. One bad record and they may never be heard from again.

      I wish the band Ra (try to search for them, not all that easy) would drop their contract with their label, though they will loose all rights to their work (it's owned by the label as pretty much every artists is). They have talent, but got no exposure and seem to have dropped compltely off the map... That happens all to often with bands with real talent, but aren't the next boy band or talentless bimbo girl that the music label can push around...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  8. Bringing an artist's bottom line into existence by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unless they mean that piracy can bring an artist's bottom line into existence-- an interesting concept.

    "They're pirating our records!"

    "How can we get them to buy our records? What's something we can offer that the pirates can't?"

    "Ummm... liner notes?"

    "Bingo. Let's have $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER get her butt done and put more pictures in the liner notes of her next album."

    So then the label advances $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER the money for cosmetic surgery on her backside, effecting her bottom line.

  9. Artists? Starving? by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When was the last time Van Gogh collected a royalty check?

    Corporate ownership of music should be outlawed.

    It's unnecessary.

  10. BMI is not a record company! by shark72 · · Score: 4, Informative

    BMI is a performance rights organization. They are not part of the money flow involved with buying a CD. They are non-profit, run by and for artists and composers -- the "good guys" according to many Slashdotters.

    They handle public performances. Not CD sales..

    Again: BMI = good guys. They collect money for artists and performers -- the little guys. And this money does not come from CD sales. It would be a stretch to claim that P2P would have any effect on BMI's revenue stream. It's all explained here.

    This has to be the mother of all straw men, folks.

    --
    Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  11. Re:Something we don't know by shark72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Maybe the BMI could tell us something we couldn't figure out for ourselves. We know the music artists aren't starving, its not too hard to figure out when they are driving around H2's and flashing their bling-bling."

    I think you're confusing the performers -- the pretty people whose photos are on the cover of the CD -- with the songwriters and composers who work behind the scenes creating the music that's recorded by the music stars. Sometimes they're the same person (in the case of a singer/songwriter) but often they're not.

    A career as a composer or songwriter is often shitty, backbreaking work for little or no recognition. Very few Hummer H2s for the majority of those who've made this their chosen profession.

    And it's BMI who looks out for these people.

    --
    Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  12. Re:"Barrowing" music? by HeghmoH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call outright stealing "borrowing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:

    It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call copyright infringement "outright stealing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:

    1: When one steals something, it usually deprives the original owner of the objects. This is true of stealing a CD from a music store. The store no longer has that CD to sell to its customers.

    2: When something is copied against the will of the copyright owner, the copyright owner loses nothing but an abstract potential.

    "Stealing" music from a friend in the form of a copied CD or MP3 or downloading music from strangers on the internet does not meet the definitions of stealing.

    I believe people SHOULD respect copyright, because it causes people to make valuable contributions to society. But let's not muddy the waters to make a point against those who may disagree; it isn't stealing just because you disagree. It's copyright infringement. Let's at least be honest.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  13. Re:Inflation by shark72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're absolutely correct -- in fact, the price of music has not kept up with inflation. That record on sale for $9.99 in 1984 would cost $17.60 in today's dollars; meanwhile (believe it or not) the average price of a new CD is now down to about $13.50.

    --
    Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  14. "Chock full of links"? by TheFrood · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, it's chock full of 404's. Here are the correct links:

    open and vicious attack on fair use
    bring civil cases themselves
    bends its statistics

    --
    If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
  15. You know what BMI does, right? by werdna · · Score: 4, Informative

    BMI does not sell records, and its revenues do not depend upon record sales. BMI is one of three main competing performance rights associations (ASCAP and SESAC are two others), who control the exclusive right to publicly perform (as opposed to distribute and reproduce) music. Typical licensees are restaurants, night clubs and radio stations.

    Presumably, even pirates eat, party and listen to the radio.

    Not that I don't sympathize with your position, but BMI is in a different business from the RIAA.